Depending on how the FO decides to play Leroy Hill's OLB spot, and work with the D Line, our defense could be together for 4-5 years (assuming the work out the contracts) and our offense can manage the same. I'm sure some guys will leave to the allure of ridiculous free agent contracts, but if JS can keep reloading on the back end, we're in for an incredible decade or more.

Doug Baldwin took a hit to the head when he was younger and now can't remember how to drop a football. - SomersetHawk

FlyingGreg wrote:The only downside is trying to keep guys when their cheap rookie deals expire in the next 2-4 years. There are going to be a lot of tough decisions, but that's the nature of the league.

The fallacy is in trying to keep them. This team needs to be getting the next Chancellor/Tate/Sherman. One thing we can definitely say about this FO, is that they are very comfortable with change. Changing to a 'trying to keep' them team is paramount to resting on one's laurels. I don't think that fits with the core philosophy of the team.

As fans, we fear it because we don't think it's easily replicated. Like we got lucky and now we have to stave off attrition. I don't think that's how this brain trust is wired.

McGruff wrote:Meanwhile, by adding Boldin and Reed to an already aging roster, the Niners are setting themselves up for injury issues and long term decline (see The Bears and Stealers of 2012).

Their draft picks this year will help mitigate some of that, if they hit on them.

It'll be interesting because SF isn't a team that generally trusts their rookies. At least that's been Harbaugh's MO. So even if they do hit on some, they may not be functional depth until next season.

Last edited by Attyla the Hawk on Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

FlyingGreg wrote:The only downside is trying to keep guys when their cheap rookie deals expire in the next 2-4 years. There are going to be a lot of tough decisions, but that's the nature of the league.

....but with PC&JS's ability to find guys late in the draft coupled with a strategy of keeping the competition going all the time should keep the team on the right track. We have the ability to bring 'marginal' guys in and not have to throw them in the fire right away, but can coach them up a season or two until they're ready.

Yeah, it's gonna be nerve-wracking when contract time comes up for some of these guys, but somehow I think Pete will have guys ready to step up if we lose players to the lure of money elsewhere. It looks like we have some depth at most positions that should carry us through.

Talent can get you to the playoffs.It takes character to win when you get there.SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS

FlyingGreg wrote:The only downside is trying to keep guys when their cheap rookie deals expire in the next 2-4 years. There are going to be a lot of tough decisions, but that's the nature of the league.

The fallacy is in trying to keep them. This team needs to be getting the next Chancellor/Tate/Sherman. One thing we can definitely say about this FO, is that they are very comfortable with change. Changing to a 'trying to keep' them team is paramount to resting on one's laurels. I don't think that fits with the core philosophy of the team.

As fans, we fear it because we don't think it's easily replicated. Like we got lucky and now we have to stave off attrition. I don't think that's how this brain trust is wired.

McGruff wrote:Meanwhile, by adding Boldin and Reed to an already aging roster, the Niners are setting themselves up for injury issues and long term decline (see The Bears and Stealers of 2012).

Their draft picks this year will help mitigate some of that, if they hit on them.

It'll be interesting because SF isn't a team that generally trusts their rookies. At least that's been Harbaugh's MO. So even if they do hit on some, they may not be functional depth until next season.

You can't keep everyone, but you have to keep the core together. Sherman isn't going anywhere, neither is Wilson...or Thomas and possibly Okung. After those guys, who knows.

FlyingGreg wrote:The only downside is trying to keep guys when their cheap rookie deals expire in the next 2-4 years. There are going to be a lot of tough decisions, but that's the nature of the league.

The fallacy is in trying to keep them. This team needs to be getting the next Chancellor/Tate/Sherman. One thing we can definitely say about this FO, is that they are very comfortable with change. Changing to a 'trying to keep' them team is paramount to resting on one's laurels. I don't think that fits with the core philosophy of the team.

As fans, we fear it because we don't think it's easily replicated. Like we got lucky and now we have to stave off attrition. I don't think that's how this brain trust is wired.

I think those 5 are pretty safe until they start to decline. With a guy like Harvin it remains to be seen how he will fit in with the culture, but talent wise, I don't see how you can let him walk once you get him here. A lot of the difficulty is letting a Sidney Rice or Golden Tate take their big payday from someone else, but it is a very real possibility. As long as the cupboards are restocked with young talent it's a non-issue. Pete has been exemplary at getting rookies on the field in an impactful manner.

Doug Baldwin took a hit to the head when he was younger and now can't remember how to drop a football. - SomersetHawk

Sarlacc83 wrote:Can anyone think of a Seahawks roster that had more talent on it? Seriously, the 2013 Seahawks are stacked and not in the 2012 Eagles roster kind of way.

I had this exact conversation with a coworker this morning. I can think of some years where the Hawks had better/deeper talent in specific positional groups (DL, OL off the top of my head) but nowhere NEAR the overall depth across the board. The best part about it, we will be in a position to continually replenish that depth with the way this front office operates.

And you are correct to point out the disparity between the Eagles (more 2011 "dream team") and the Hawks. Another good example is the Redskins through most of the 2000's.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

Looks like the way I build my Madden teams. As soon as they get their 3rd contract (pushing 30) - they're outta here. You can sustain and build through the draft and 2nd contract FA's - the key is to stick to it. We do have a few guys that are carrying some big contracts - the key to this whole act is to make sure that the organization (and fans) do not get married to one or two guys. Everyone is valuable, but also should have the expectation that one day they will be gone if they want that big deal.

This seems like an ideal time to reference the research done by Davis Hsu on the Green Bay model of player management that was posted at Field Gulls a while back.

Basically, it outlined the idea that with few exceptions, the Packers don't bother with FA and instead reward their own FAs according to the following general philosophy:

1/3 (One-third) - or more importantly - 18 - which is the closest number to 1/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay rewards 1/3 of its roster with big money 2nd contracts - typically players in Year 5-8 of their careers (peak) and about four more Legacy type players (Year 9+).

2/3 (two-thirds) - Or more importantly - 35- which is the closest number to 2/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay is able to always pay its best players, and never lose the players they want to another bidder, because 2/3 of the roster is cheap, young labor playing on inexpensive rookie contracts.

13 - or perhaps you can think of it as 1/4 - This is the number of new players that enter the Green Bay system each year.

So there are your stars that you reward with lucrative contracts, your role players who tend to be on cheap rookie deals, and a steady influx of new players to compete for jobs.

We are about to hit the point in PC/JS's tenure where guys who came in and were beloved because they were building blocks in turning our team's fortunes around are going to start leaving - either because they were offered a better deal in FA or because they get beat out by fresh blood from the draft. It's not going to be comfortable, but it should allow Seattle to sustain an excellent team for a long time.

volsunghawk wrote:This seems like an ideal time to reference the research done by Davis Hsu on the Green Bay model of player management that was posted at Field Gulls a while back.

Basically, it outlined the idea that with few exceptions, the Packers don't bother with FA and instead reward their own FAs according to the following general philosophy:

1/3 (One-third) - or more importantly - 18 - which is the closest number to 1/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay rewards 1/3 of its roster with big money 2nd contracts - typically players in Year 5-8 of their careers (peak) and about four more Legacy type players (Year 9+).

2/3 (two-thirds) - Or more importantly - 35- which is the closest number to 2/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay is able to always pay its best players, and never lose the players they want to another bidder, because 2/3 of the roster is cheap, young labor playing on inexpensive rookie contracts.

13 - or perhaps you can think of it as 1/4 - This is the number of new players that enter the Green Bay system each year.

So there are your stars that you reward with lucrative contracts, your role players who tend to be on cheap rookie deals, and a steady influx of new players to compete for jobs.

We are about to hit the point in PC/JS's tenure where guys who came in and were beloved because they were building blocks in turning our team's fortunes around are going to start leaving - either because they were offered a better deal in FA or because they get beat out by fresh blood from the draft. It's not going to be comfortable, but it should allow Seattle to sustain an excellent team for a long time.

volsunghawk wrote:This seems like an ideal time to reference the research done by Davis Hsu on the Green Bay model of player management that was posted at Field Gulls a while back.

Basically, it outlined the idea that with few exceptions, the Packers don't bother with FA and instead reward their own FAs according to the following general philosophy:

1/3 (One-third) - or more importantly - 18 - which is the closest number to 1/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay rewards 1/3 of its roster with big money 2nd contracts - typically players in Year 5-8 of their careers (peak) and about four more Legacy type players (Year 9+).

2/3 (two-thirds) - Or more importantly - 35- which is the closest number to 2/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay is able to always pay its best players, and never lose the players they want to another bidder, because 2/3 of the roster is cheap, young labor playing on inexpensive rookie contracts.

13 - or perhaps you can think of it as 1/4 - This is the number of new players that enter the Green Bay system each year.

So there are your stars that you reward with lucrative contracts, your role players who tend to be on cheap rookie deals, and a steady influx of new players to compete for jobs.

We are about to hit the point in PC/JS's tenure where guys who came in and were beloved because they were building blocks in turning our team's fortunes around are going to start leaving - either because they were offered a better deal in FA or because they get beat out by fresh blood from the draft. It's not going to be comfortable, but it should allow Seattle to sustain an excellent team for a long time.

volsunghawk wrote:Okay, 15. Maybe add Chancellor as a unique player? Carpenter if he stays healthy and works well with Okung? Browner?

Personally I think Browner is replaceable (if he wants a big contract). On the fence in regards to Okung. It seems like he would be replaceable, but sometimes you don't appreciate what you have until you lose 'em. I've seen some teams that let a solid LT go and then really pay the price for it.

I think you could make the argument that we've got about 15 or so key guys who we need to lock up and to whom we grant those big dollar deals. They'll take the bulk of the money available under the salary cap. In Hsu's analysis of the Green Bay model, about 80% of the available money went to those 18 star players. The last 20% is split up among the remaining 35 guys on rookie deals.

The benefit to this split is that you can pay at least market value to keep your star players and don't risk losing them in FA while you grow young talent within your culture and system. If that young talent blossoms and deserves to be rewarded with a 2nd contract, it will likely replace one of the older members of your group of 18 "stars." This keeps the team young and loyal (Hsu does a much better job of explaining this than I am doing... find it at http://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-anal ... -schneider).

In any case, I think that outside of the 15 or so guys we just named in this thread, we should be prepared to see departures when some of the other group start reaching the ends of their deals. We'll have new guys coming in to compete for their jobs anyway.

volsunghawk wrote:Okay, 15. Maybe add Chancellor as a unique player? Carpenter if he stays healthy and works well with Okung? Browner?

Personally I think Browner is replaceable (if he wants a big contract). On the fence in regards to Okung. It seems like he would be replaceable, but sometimes you don't appreciate what you have until you lose 'em. I've seen some teams that let a solid LT go and then really pay the price for it.

I can understand Browner, simply because of age. We could definitely live without him but he brings a physical presence that people underestimate. Just go back and watch the NE game, and when it starts to turn around. Brandon Browner lighting Wes Welker up (and others) was a big part of that.

As for Okung, that thought is crazy. Okung was one of the best LTs in the game last year, no way they let him test FA.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

I'm probably missing people . . . but put the first two lists together, and you've got 13 names . . . from the 3rd group I think all are replaceable as their contracts come off the books, freeing up significant money. From the 4th group we need at least one of the guards to become long term starters and join the top 18 or so. I think you can tell from the salaries of Harvin and Rice that Tate and Baldwin are on the outside, looking in long term. And Browner and Kam could be considered expendable and replacable with lower cost alternatives.

I'm probably missing people . . . but put the first two lists together, and you've got 13 names . . . from the 3rd group I think all are replaceable as their contracts come off the books, freeing up significant money. From the 4th group we need at least one of the guards to become long term starters and join the top 18 or so. I think you can tell from the salaries of Harvin and Rice that Tate and Baldwin are on the outside, looking in long term. And Browner and Kam could be considered expendable and replacable with lower cost alternatives.

That's a really good overview. Pretty accurate I think. Since there are some high paydays coming up,do you think the Harvin trade might be an "all in" move while these players are together?Choices in free agency and the draft will probably be an indicator.

I'm probably missing people . . . but put the first two lists together, and you've got 13 names . . . from the 3rd group I think all are replaceable as their contracts come off the books, freeing up significant money. From the 4th group we need at least one of the guards to become long term starters and join the top 18 or so. I think you can tell from the salaries of Harvin and Rice that Tate and Baldwin are on the outside, looking in long term. And Browner and Kam could be considered expendable and replacable with lower cost alternatives.